Bishop Williamson Floats Rumors Of New Motu Proprio, Fellay Denies

[OraProMe]

[quote name='goldenchild17' timestamp='1283668113' post='2168179']
we shall see I suppose. I believe the sede leaning group within the SSPX is a bit stronger than many realize (though I fully admit I could be mistaken). And many trads from many groups still have quite a bit of respect for Williamson despite what the media and others have had to say about him.
[/quote]

Many trads have quite a bit of respect for Williamson [b]because[/b] of what the media has said about him.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1283668643' post='2168185']
Many trads have quite a bit of respect for Williamson [b]because[/b] of what the media has said about him.
[/quote]

Maybe. My point was that, one can't gauge how the traditional community feels about Williamson based on how the rest of the world sees him. I remember when all of the controversy first came out surrounding him that he still kept his base of support (I know because I was one of those who supported him). I don't remember any type of fall out in the traditional community because of any of it. From this I was saying that I think Williamson still has enough support for when Fellay works things out with the Vatican that I think he could lead the rest of them in continuity. Will this ultimately be what happens? Not necessarily, maybe nihil is right and they break up and go this way and that or wherever. But I see them staying more or less together, albeit smaller, with Fellay and his group working within the Church, and Williamson and the rest working juridically and canonically outside of it.

[Skinzo]

 One thing that seems odd to me is that given the SSPX's stress on obedience and discipline you would think  Williamson would respect the authority of Fellay and keep his mouth shut. I also wonder why Fellay does not impose further discipline on Williamson given his apparent defiance at times of his "silencing"?  But then Fellay has no claim to be a source of unity, only the papacy can claim that.

I think it all goes back to the point made earlier that the papacy is truly the focus of unity in the Church, and once you reject it, there is no hope of unity. We see that in the history of  Protestantism which now has over 7,000 distinct denominations from what started with Luther. Rejecting papal authority only leads to endless fragmentation. 

As St. Cyprian said in 251: "On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"




S.

[MithLuin]

Yeah; I'd say that Fellay and Williamson are [i]both[/i] bishops, so...on what basis does Fellay feel he can order Williamson around? When Lefebvre was the only bishop in the community, things were a bit different!

From my viewpoint (which is admittedly [i]not[/i] that of members of the SSPX!), the question is whether they would find it acceptable to be one group within the larger Church, or whether they will insist that the whole Church agree with them and admit they were right all along. If they are content to stay more or less how they are, but be brought into union (with a Church that also remains more or less how it is), things will work out somehow. Because then it's not a matter of changing, it's just a matter of acknowledging that the other guy isn't wrong. For instance, they can keep saying the Traditional Latin Mass (exclusively), but they'd have to acknowledge that the NO is also...mass. Not a mass they have to go to or participate in, but.....

If it's a matter of being right...well, they're not going to prove to the worldwide Church that they are the remnant of the true Catholic faithful and that Vatican II was wrong. And if that is their driving motivation, they're not going to welcome a union that brings them into more direct contact with people who don't agree with them. And then there is the issue of obedience.... It might be easier for some to give lip service to the idea of a pope as long as they are allowed to disagree with him. Meaning, some people might have gotten quite comfortable outside the Church, and will suddenly find themselves being sedevacantists (for instance) once invited back inside.

It might be inevitable that some of the group will reject any reunion Fellay agrees to (if Fellay agrees to anything at all), but there will always be fringe groups that aren't Catholic (but like to call themselves Catholic). I doubt the Vatican is going to make a concerted effort to bring the others back into the fold. [The historical approach would be to send in friars or priests to evangelize the heretics....] The SSPX is in a unique situation because of how the split happened...and how close they've stayed to legitimate doctrine.

I feel that at this point, the Vatican has done their part - they've lifted the excommunications, and they've allowed for a much greater usage of the Latin mass. Now...the ball is in the SSPX's court. [I realize discussions are two-way, but the next 'move'...is unlikely to be Pope Benedict's]

I certainly hope the situation does not lead to a complete splintering of the group.

Edited September 5, 2010 by MithLuin

[goldenchild17]

[size="2"][quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1283693215' post='2168216']
Yeah; I'd say that Fellay and Williamson are [/size][i][size="2"]both[/size][/i][size="2"] bishops, so...on what basis does Fellay feel he can order Williamson around? When Lefebvre was the only bishop in the community, things were a bit different!
[/quote]

I think Bp. Williamson has been allowed to get away with more than the others, maybe due to also being a bishop. However, Bp Fellay was elected Superior General by the rest of the SSPX, so he "should" be considered their head by anyone who lives under their rules (presumably Bp. Williamson is included in this).

[/size][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="2"][quote[/size][/font][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="2"]]I certainly hope the situation does not lead to a complete splintering of the group[/quote][/size][/font] [font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"] [/font] [font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="2"]Considering what seems to be the dynamic of the group, I personally just don't see how this cannot be the outcome, unless Bp. Fellay were to completely back out of any talks with Rome whatsoever. However, I do agree that I certainly hope that there won't be such splintering, just that I can't imagine how it won't end up like that. I would love it if Williamson would reconcile and use his knowledge and passion for good and for Rome. I know many don't like him, but I always have for some reason, and wish he would come back if and when Fellay does. I just don't see how it would happen, without some major and unnecessary changes on the Vatican's part.[/size][/font]

Edited September 5, 2010 by goldenchild17

[MithLuin]

Yes, I agree that Superior General counts for something. I guess I was just thinking that it's a bit of a delicate situation for a Superior General to discipline a fellow bishop. Not that religious orders don't have to deal with similar situations from time to time. (Archbishop Chaput of Denver and Cardinal O'Malley of Boston are both Capuchin Franciscans, for instance.)

I guess I'm hoping that [i]all[/i] of the SSPX bishops can be in agreement over this, so the reunion can move forward. If Williamson (being a bishop) strikes out on his own, it will be the same issue as when Lefebvre consecrated bishops without permission, but with even less chance of reconciliation, probably.

Prayers for everyone involved!

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1283694779' post='2168222']
Yes, I agree that Superior General counts for something. I guess I was just thinking that it's a bit of a delicate situation for a Superior General to discipline a fellow bishop. Not that religious orders don't have to deal with similar situations from time to time. (Archbishop Chaput of Denver and Cardinal O'Malley of Boston are both Capuchin Franciscans, for instance.)

I guess I'm hoping that [i]all[/i] of the SSPX bishops can be in agreement over this, so the reunion can move forward. If Williamson (being a bishop) strikes out on his own, it will be the same issue as when Lefebvre consecrated bishops without permission, but with even less chance of reconciliation, probably.

Prayers for everyone involved!
[/quote]



agreed on all counts. I'm just not particularly optimistic about it